| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Remaining 9.5 open items |
| Date: | 2015-11-30 22:08:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20151130220806.GD2763@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost wrote:
> The non-documentation question is around DROP OWNED. We need to either
> have policies dropped by DROP OWNED (well, roles removed, unless it's
> the last one, in which case the policy should be dropped), or update the
> documentation to reflect that they don't. I had been thinking we'd
> fix DROP OWNED to deal with the policies, but if folks feel it's too
> late for that kind of a change, then we can simply document it. I don't
> believe that's unreasonable for a new feature and we can work to get it
> addressed in 9.6.
DROP OWNED is documented as a mechanism to help you drop the role, so
it should do whatever is needed for that. I don't think documenting the
fact that it leaves the user as part of policies is good enough.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-11-30 22:14:40 | Re: Remaining 9.5 open items |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-11-30 21:55:20 | Re: Remaining 9.5 open items |